ACTION: MSM to send email to tech-plenary arrangements team with coordinated response from WS and XML

[DavidF]

ACTION: DH MC MSM to discuss team tag to report from XML CG

zakim, close agendum 3

[Zakim]

agendum 3 closed

I see 1 item remaining on the agenda:

4. What to recommend w.r.t. the Choreography charter proposal from WSA [from MSM]

[Jonathan]

David: Michael and I developed three options:

[MSM]

I. Move forward, send charter to AC (and let AC decide whether to form the WG given the current situation with availability of basic specs)

II.a. Recommend that W3M open a local-area negotiation with BPEL owners and ask them what it would take to make it available.

II.a. Recommend that W3M open a wide-area negotiation with larger group of stake-holders w.r.t. factoring choreography space, deciding what happens where (including what parts of chor are done in which SDO)

JM proposes a II.c Recommend that W3C do a workshop. (Differs from II.b as set of stakeholders differs from stakeholders + everybody else who wants to come)

DF: of course, if we factor the area, that sounds like work for WSA. DMH: yes, but it's not clear the WG will be able to do it fast enough [scribe not sure wording is quite right]

III. Recommend that W3M not do it.

DF: I read the straw poll results as meaning in effect that WSCI and BPEL are 'essential', and others desirable / non-essential.

DF: can we go round the table and ask for views? also: are there other options that should be listed?

[em]

zakim, who is on the phone?

[Zakim]

On the phone I see Mike_Champion, DaveH, EricM, Fallside, Michael, Jonathan_Marsh

[MSM]

EM: you've articulated an appropriate set of options. My particular view is that time is of the essence

and the AC is designed as a voice to help shape these decisions.

[DavidF]

em: I - III paints the right landscape

[MSM]

So: I.

Jonathan: hard to say which takes precedence: the three options, or getting BPEL available.

Not clear whether it's really a veto over this work or not.

(DF asks for clarification)

DF paraphrasing JM: you mean it's hard to make a decision until it's clear whether BPEL will be available.

JM assents.

DF: so that comes down to II.a? JM yes, perhaps, but it's kind of odd for W3C to be actively soliciting a submission.

JM: so perhaps I. would be good. We shouldn't be making big policy decisions here.

JM: option I with a modification: let AC decide, but add whatever W3M can learn about the availability of BPEL. II.a, then I.

JM: NO matter what the answer to II.a is, even if BPEL owners say no, still send to AC. Let AC decide.

[DavidF]

msm: hugo's pref is for I, as is msm's

msm: as a w3m member, is interested in cg's guidance esp on yes/no/try again later (wrt IIa)

[MSM]

JM: there may be some skepticism about whether BPEL is really ready for standardization; that may make it hard for the owners to make a decision.

[DavidF]

mc: IIa then I

[MSM]

MC: I think I'm in consensus with II.a-then-I. Almost certainly W3C should go ahead,

but it would be easier all round if BPEL were made available.

If MS or others decide they really want to work internally until later, then the AC will face a hard choice.

But if BPEL owners are willing to go ahead with a collaborative activity, it will make the decision a lot easier.

DMH: I am worried about the boiling-the-ocean problem some people raise.

[DavidF]

dh: worried about choreography being an ocean boiling exercise

[MSM]

If we end up with a large WG working on a large large problem, it could be a long time.

As long as we have a strong effort to reduce the scope early, I could support II.a, II.b, or I.

[DavidF]

dh: re large wg, some sympathy for IIb

[MSM]

MC, DMH: from the point of view of getting reasonably good factoring, II.b might be good.

DF: where does that end up putting your preference? DH: whatever we do, just make sure there is a scope-narrowing exercise up front.

JM: don't charter the group to decide what it's supposed to do: that's a good way to keep a WG going a long time.

DF can we get around that problem by recommending a multi-step plan of action?

E.g. (1) W3M talks to BPEL stakeholders, and BPEL decides what it wants, (2) get the stakeholders into a room, possibly with others, to work on a narrower / more precisely defined scope./

(1) and (2) to go on in parallel for defined time, e.g. some weeks.

(3) charter then goes to AC with the best available intelligence on what is available, and when.

DMH: [I agree with that, it raises the question why WSA is not doing all this. Reason: the factoring needs to respect industry desires for areas of competition / ip. That's not purely technical, but also political.]

JM sounds like II.a, then II.b, then I.

[DavidF]

msm: w3m is concerned to show public progress

[MSM]

DF: how about (a) recommend that WSA think about tech Q of how to factor the scope of choreography, (b) recommend to W3M that it work to find out what the story on BPEL is

and (c) ask W3M (not WSA) to check on the actual availability of the other specs listed.

(Change from description in agenda on grounds that it's political, not technical)

(a), (b), (c) to be time-limited, and after expiration go to AC for decision.

JM: clearly delineating the scope is an important success factor. If there is urgency to starting, but not urgency to getting the scope right, that's something to push back on.

MC: it's hard to do the scope work in WSA because there are so many non-technical issues on the table

JM: i agree, but an open-ended charter may be faster to start but will be slower to finish.

DF: I'll push back against MC. Yes, there are non-technical issues, but you could usefully look at that long list of specs, you know what some of the obvious contingencies are, identify some of the striations across them all.

Study them, and come back with some likely piecings from all those specs.

MC yes. If we look at this as a technical question, we can put all these things out on the table inpublic view.

If it's a technical question we are asked, we can answer. It's only the 'policy' issues that get in the way.

DF: the only political issue you really need to ask is "what if BPEL were not part of this mix?"

[DavidF]

s/only/obvious

[MSM]

MC: hmm. Phrased that way, maybe it does make sense.

DMH: Concerned that our consensus about II.a, II.b, then I option seems to have evaporated.

Worried that taking it to WSA will take too long.

JM that sounds like a CG issue - how can we help WSA do better?

MSM asks DMH: are you worried that WSA will become a bottleneck?

DMH: yes. Also worried because we ARE making progress on top-level factorization, and this would be a distraction.

JM: so having the CG administer a task force on choreography factorization might help avoid the distraction?

JM: could you provide any resources for a chor/factoring TF? MC: sure, DMH: but will they be our crucial resources?

DF: maybe we could give WSA the action of generating a proposal for how to do this; the CG isn't going to do this now in the next five minutes.

JM: who is essential for this TF? wsci, bpel, and bpml stakeholders?

CG set up a telcon to get them talking?

MC: we could just recommend to W3M that they have to get SOMEONE to refactor this.

MC: also go back to WSA asking for a plan.

DMH: use the W3C process for marshaling resources.

don't invent parallel processing.

DMH: II.a is the answer.

DF: note, however, that WSA is a unique WG.

DF: so: we go to W3M, say "go the stakeholders, ask them (a) are you going to bring BPEL here, (b) when will you know, and

(c) do you ahve todo all of BPEL in the same place? Could there be different parts going different places?

That needs to be part of the discussion.

MC: the relevant people at MS and IBM are more likely to respond to TBL or SB than to DMH or me -- so get W3M involved.

DF: seems to be consensus that we recommend that W3M talk to BPEL stakeholders.

DF: is there also consensus to ask WSA to come up with a plan to narrow the scope?